RE: What 10 Paleontologists Say About DinosaursFor most Catholics, the 10 Priests give their sound opinions.
But to be totally realistic, for some Catholics and most other people, when they see:
What 10 Priests Say About Contraception they equate that to
What 10 Vegans say about throwing the perfect BBQ Rib cook off.
So basically, to be logical:
Right or wrong, this is the reality.
- Most people enjoy and want to enjoy sexual pleasure without wanting to have a child.
- Thus, they DO use contraception.
They chart so they can avoid sex altogether if they are avoiding pregnancy, not to determine when to use contraception.So NFP couples do not have an intention to thwart conception (thwart as to prevent something from happening).
If they do not have the intention to prevent the conception from happening then why do they chart?
Your hypothetical is getting a flat tire. Read the story again. The WHOLE POINT OF ONAN HAVING INTERCOURSE WITH HIS BROTHER’S WIFE WAS TO GIVE HER CHILDREN TO CARRY ON HIS BROTHER’S NAME. He refused to procreate. He did what he did to prevent conception. NFP takes time and two willing partners. It is more than simply having sex at the proper time, not to mention Onan’s true intention would’ve been exposed by the discussion of infertile times between the woman and Onan. She would’ve then taken him before the Temple Judges and convicted him in their sight for refusing her the children she had a religious right to. See what I mean? So thinking NFP would be an acceptable part of their picture doesn’t fit. Try again.Would Onan be killed if he did this with his wife and not his brother’s wife?
Onan took Tamar, he went to her but he was deceiving his father and people.
He was not saying* “I do not want to marry her”.*
He was pretending he wants to give his brother kids.
This is what was wrong. If he used NFP instead of spilling the semen it would make no difference.
Trying to get into your head to see where your confusion is coming from I have gleaned this…So NFP couples do not have an intention to thwart conception (thwart as to prevent something from happening).
If they do not have the intention to prevent the conception from happening then why do they chart?
At the end they do have an intention to avoid conception, to have an intention to thwart conception (thwart as to prevent something from happening).They chart so they can avoid sex altogether if they are avoiding pregnancy, not to determine when to use contraception.
Let’s look at it different way.Hello Jaa.
Your hypothetical is getting a flat tire. Read the story again. The WHOLE POINT OF ONAN HAVING INTERCOURSE WITH HIS BROTHER’S WIFE WAS TO GIVE HER CHILDREN TO CARRY ON HIS BROTHER’S NAME. He refused to procreate. He did what he did to prevent conception. NFP takes time and two willing partners. It is more than simply having sex at the proper time, not to mention Onan’s true intention would’ve been exposed by the discussion of infertile times between the woman and Onan. She would’ve then taken him before the Temple Judges and convicted him in their sight for refusing her the children she had a religious right to. See what I mean? So thinking NFP would be an acceptable part of their picture doesn’t fit. Try again.
Glenda
If a person is bothersome to you, you are within your natural right to walk away from him or not to go near him in the first place. If a person is bothersome to you, you have no natural right to knock him unconscious or kill him. Avoiding the person by walking away shows him due respect and resolves the dilemma. Avoiding him by knocking him unconscious to avoid his company, is evil and not in keeping with his natural and God given right to life. You can avoid a situation through recourse that respects the natural and divine order. You can avoid a situation through interfering with the order, in order to create a false right that flows as a lie throughout the order of all that is connected with it. That is evil in both the human and divine spectrum.At the end they do have an intention to avoid conception, to have an intention to thwart conception (thwart as to prevent something from happening).
The execution how it’s achieved is different. What is the big deal?
They avoid conception by avoiding the sex.
Would you be able to show the logic of the natural law that using a human invention to achieve the same goal is immoral?
There would be nothing wrong with admitting that you don’t know how to do that.
The conception avoidance is not evil. That’s supported by HV. No issue there.Trying to get into your head to see where your confusion is coming from I have gleaned this…
You are thinking that the avoidance of pregnancy makes contraception evil rather than that which is true being that contraception makes the avoidance evil.
You are thinking that the avoidance of pregnancy makes NFP evil rather than that which is true being that NFP makes avoidance legitimate and moral.
You are making the aspect of avoidance the lynchpin when it is the integrity of intercourse which is the lynchpin.
A sales person comes and knocks on the door periodically.If a person is bothersome to you, you are within your natural right to walk away from him or not to go near him in the first place. If a person is bothersome to you, you have no natural right to knock him unconscious or kill him. Avoiding the person by walking away shows him due respect and resolves the dilemma. Avoiding him by knocking him unconscious to avoid his company, is evil and not in keeping with his natural and God given right to life. You can avoid a situation through recourse that respects the natural and divine order. You can avoid a situation through interfering with the order, in order to create a false right that flows as a lie throughout the order of all that is connected with it. That is evil in both the human and divine spectrum.
Here’s the problem with your logic. An amputation can ONLY be justified by a serious health reason determined by likely fatality without it. The Church teaching also allows for treatments that interfere with fertility ONLY for serious reasons related to health. Just as to choose an amputation when alternatives that preserve the wholeness of the body are available is unethical (essentially mutilation)… so to to choose contraception when alternatives that preserve the integrity of intercourse and fertility are available ie. abstinence… is an intrinsically evil act.The conception avoidance is not evil. That’s supported by HV. No issue there.
NFP is not evil. No issue there.
The contraception is intrinsically evil. No issue there because it includes bad intentions and under bad circumstances.
The conception avoidance by using condoms or any other non-abortive means with good intentions and under good circumstances is morally OK.
This is based on the parallel to the mutilation/amputation example. Whatever natural law logic is used here it can be applied to the conception avoidance.
That’s the summary of my opinions.
Yes, that is fine. To prevent the intercourse altogether through avoidance is perfectly legitimate. However, you cannot invite him in and during that sales intercourse you feed him poison tea or stuff his mouth full of cottonwool or do something that inhibits the natural flow of the meeting… that offends the dignity of his person and his right to safe passage in his employment. It’s perfectly legitimate however, to avoid the intercourse altogether.A sales person comes and knocks on the door periodically.
What’s wrong with building a fence and a gate in order not to allow him to come to the door?
Killing him would be wrong of course.
Where do you see the Church’s teaching that if NFP does not work then the condoms are OK?Here’s the problem with your logic. An amputation can ONLY be justified by a serious health reason determined by likely fatality without it. The Church teaching also allows for treatments that interfere with fertility ONLY for serious reasons related to health. Just as to choose an amputation when alternatives that preserve the wholeness of the body are available is unethical (essentially mutilation)… so to to choose contraception when alternatives that preserve the integrity of intercourse and fertility are available ie. abstinence… is an intrinsically evil act.
You can invite the sales person in, offer a good refreshing cup of tea, have a nice chat and at the end to say you are not buying anything. What would be wrong with that? The chat itself would fulfill some other goals.Yes, that is fine. To prevent the intercourse altogether through avoidance is perfectly legitimate. However, you cannot invite him in and during that sales intercourse you feed him poison tea or stuff his mouth full of cottonwool or do something that inhibits the natural flow of the meeting… that offends the dignity of his person and his right to safe passage in his employment. It’s perfectly legitimate however, to avoid the intercourse altogether.
Here is another example. There is always a possibility to talk to your spouse in the natural way - face to face. The abstinence does not do any harm so spouse should wait till they are face to face. Right?LongingSoul;12304678:
Where do you see the Church’s teaching that if NFP does not work then the condoms are OK?Here’s the problem with your logic. An amputation can ONLY be justified by a serious health reason determined by likely fatality without it. The Church teaching also allows for treatments that interfere with fertility ONLY for serious reasons related to health. Just as to choose an amputation when alternatives that preserve the wholeness of the body are available is unethical (essentially mutilation)… so to to choose contraception when alternatives that preserve the integrity of intercourse and fertility are available ie. abstinence… is an intrinsically evil act.
What you are describing here is ‘intercourse’. It doesn’t matter whether the intercourse resulted in a sale of product or if the intercourse didn’t produce a fruitful outcome. What has happened is a connection between two people that followed a natural course without anyone or anything being violated or silenced. That intercourse between a salesman and a homeowner goes on every day of the week. Sure some people avoid that intercourse altogether and do not allow the saleman in. Perfectly legitimate. But other times they choose to let him in for a hearing even though a sale is not eventually made. Other times they choose to let him in and a sale is made. What is not acceptable or natural is to entertain the intercourse, but silence the dialogue by some violent interruption to the natural, normal flow common to people who undertake intercourse with each other. That goes against civility and the charitableness that civil society and human fraternity demand.You can invite the sales person in, offer a good refreshing cup of tea, have a nice chat and at the end to say you are not buying anything. What would be wrong with that? The chat itself would fulfill some other goals.
I don’t get this example. What do you want to say?
Jaaanosik;12305321:
Where do you see the Church’s teaching that if NFP does not work then the condoms are OK?Here is another example. There is always a possibility to talk to your spouse in the natural way - face to face. The abstinence does not do any harm so spouse should wait till they are face to face. Right?Originally Posted by LongingSoul
Here’s the problem with your logic. An amputation can ONLY be justified by a serious health reason determined by likely fatality without it. The Church teaching also allows for treatments that interfere with fertility ONLY for serious reasons related to health. Just as to choose an amputation when alternatives that preserve the wholeness of the body are available is unethical (essentially mutilation)… so to to choose contraception when alternatives that preserve the integrity of intercourse and fertility are available ie. abstinence… is an intrinsically evil act.
Why using a human invention - telephone is OK? That’s definitely not a natural way of communication. You miss facial expressions, gestures, …
So by your logic using unnatural alternative should be intrinsically evil. But using the phone is morally OK, why the double standard?
The thing we are talking about is the ‘intercourse’. That is the exchange of something which defines the connection. Something is actually shared by the parties participating in this ‘dialogue’.
Talking on the phone doesn’t silence the dialogue. What would be unnatural is ringing someone and not actually exchanging dialogue. Ringing for the sake of it but not interacting. That’s what is meaningless and sterile. It has no purpose with regards to what intercourse was created for. Stripped of its natural purpose, it no longer nourishes the participants by nature or by grace.
Condoms actually stop the exchange that makes intercourse life affirming and godly.
An interesting assertion. A Levirate marriage appears to be one of those accommodations God made in the early days due to the barbarity of man to mitigate some of the moral horrors of human society at the time. The fate of a widow was a harsh one at the time and Levirate marriage appears to have been a way to avoid having her starve to death or be forced into prostitution. The stipulation that any resulting children be considered the dead husband’s likewise appears to be intended to result in children that will continue to care for her in her old age after her new husband is dead.Would Onan be killed if he did this with his wife and not his brother’s wife?
Onan took Tamar, he went to her but he was deceiving his father and people.
He was not saying* “I do not want to marry her”.*
He was pretending he wants to give his brother kids.
This is what was wrong. If he used NFP instead of spilling the semen it would make no difference.
You maybe don’t remember it but we discussed something similar already a few months back.What you are describing here is ‘intercourse’. It doesn’t matter whether the intercourse resulted in a sale of product or if the intercourse didn’t produce a fruitful outcome. What has happened is a connection between two people that followed a natural course without anyone or anything being violated or silenced. That intercourse between a salesman and a homeowner goes on every day of the week. Sure some people avoid that intercourse altogether and do not allow the saleman in. Perfectly legitimate. But other times they choose to let him in for a hearing even though a sale is not eventually made. Other times they choose to let him in and a sale is made. What is not acceptable or natural is to entertain the intercourse, but silence the dialogue by some violent interruption to the natural, normal flow common to people who undertake intercourse with each other. That goes against civility and the charitableness that civil society and human fraternity demand.
To use a condom ‘silences’ one of the parties. There is no natural exchange.
The thing we are talking about is the ‘intercourse’. That is the exchange of something which defines the connection. Something is actually shared by the parties participating in this ‘dialogue’.
Talking on the phone doesn’t silence the dialogue. What would be unnatural is ringing someone and not actually exchanging dialogue. Ringing for the sake of it but not interacting. That’s what is meaningless and sterile. It has no purpose with regards to what intercourse was created for. Stripped of its natural purpose, it no longer nourishes the participants by nature or by grace.
Condoms actually stop the exchange that makes intercourse life affirming and godly.
There is no problem in understanding that the marriage means the expectation and the acceptance of children.An interesting assertion. A Levirate marriage appears to be one of those accommodations God made in the early days due to the barbarity of man to mitigate some of the moral horrors of human society at the time. The fate of a widow was a harsh one at the time and Levirate marriage appears to have been a way to avoid having her starve to death or be forced into prostitution. The stipulation that any resulting children be considered the dead husband’s likewise appears to be intended to result in children that will continue to care for her in her old age after her new husband is dead.
With that understanding of what a Levirate marriage is FOR, I’d counter-assert that refusal to marry her at all and refusal to engage in intercourse during her fertile time would amount to the same thing and should deserve the same punishment: humiliation, not death.
Let’s not parse words. Onan was not a New York Cosmo. Any OT reader would understand that marriage means the expectation of children. Attempting to drive a wedge between marriage and children is a crass attempt to read the text with modern eyes.
Listen, here is another perspective. You are clinging foolishly to the strong secular attitude that we are entitled to anything regarding our bodies and what happens to them including our fertility and even a person residing in our womb. “MY BODY MY CHOICE”.You maybe don’t remember it but we discussed something similar already a few months back.
At the time you were OK with women being treated uncharitably, they don’t have sex when they desire it the most and them being silenced by NFP in the dialog because their ovum does not come to the date with the sperm.
Now, on the other hand, you complain that the condom silences man’s sperm and it does not allow it to come to the date with the ovum.
It appears as another double standard example.
Great post! Whatever works for you might not work for many others though.Listen, here is another perspective. You are clinging foolishly to the strong secular attitude that we are entitled to anything regarding our bodies and what happens to them including our fertility and even a person residing in our womb. “MY BODY MY CHOICE”.
There is another attitude that is truly Catholic, truly generous, truly respectful of the One True God that made us for Himself. We are here in service to our Father and to each other through the gifts God gave us. We are not here for selfish gratification and a purely utilitarian approach to our lives.
Many billions of us especially as we approach the older years choose to avoid pregnancy by avoiding sex during ovulation, without feeling robbed by the Creator or nature. We do it with gratitude for the gift of our bodies and respect for the awesome powers of creativity within us. Many of these women will have recognised and embraced their fertile time as one of natural openness and generosity to those around them and in their prayer life. Religious sisters can appreciate this aspect of their womanhood perhaps even moreso than married women.
In avoiding sex during this fertile time there is no violent or selfish act performed to separate us from God and our fellow man. It accords with the natural flow of the human body and the human heart which recognises the value of abstinence in regards to physical desire, as a dying to self and generously affirming the ultimate value of life that comes to us through our creative capacity. Abstinence makes us humble and holy especially in the face of the MY BODY, MY CHOICE secular philosophy.